Who's making the switch to Nikon / D800

I suspect most with a significant lens and accessories investment will want to wait to see if Nikon holds an advantage over at least one more product cycle - if there's a sustained lead many will switch. On the other hand if I was advising a new photographer on gear or starting from scratch I'd lean Nikon at the moment.

Rittrato wrote in post #13844568
Switching will most probably not make some of you guys a better photographer,

When you buy a new, faster computer for your work it doesn't in itself make you a better CAD designer, modeler, CG-Artist, or editor.

Sometimes its about having a faster, better computer for convenience. Same with cameras.

chardog wrote in post #13895910
uh... who views gallery prints @ 20cm? It's like the 1080P vs 720P debates...... on a 32" screen....

At some point, pixels have optimal use. Luckily, the Nikon has some real improvements, such as the addition of video and features related. In body flash is nice to have too.

You'd be surprised how many people see a 2m-wide photo at an exhibition, stick their nose right into it, and say, "Hey, look - that guy's taking a piss!", when I never even realised there was a person in the distance, half-hidden behind a tree!

^^^
LOL!

Shadowblade wrote in post #13898263
You'd be surprised how many people see a 2m-wide photo at an exhibition, stick their nose right into it, and say, "Hey, look - that guy's taking a piss!", when I never even realised there was a person in the distance, half-hidden behind a tree!

Rofl! People don't understand that some print large.

jdizzle wrote in post #13898275
Rofl! People don't understand that some print large.

Sure, but at the expense of ISO performance? Some people dont understand that it's a step backwards...

chardog wrote in post #13899365
Sure, but at the expense of ISO performance? Some people dont understand that it's a step backwards...

It's not at the expense of ISO performance.

With smaller pixels, you get more noise per pixel than with larger ones. But you also have more pixels. The noise should be the same per sensor area - downsize a 36MP image to 12MP (via pixel binning or whatever) and you should have the same amount of noise per pixel as the 12MP file.

chardog wrote in post #13899365
Sure, but at the expense of ISO performance? Some people dont understand that it's a step backwards...

First, what are you shooting that needs high ISO?

I wonder what used D700's are going for now? I think a D700 would be a great second body to a D800.

SuicidnS13 wrote in post #13899496
I wonder what used D700's are going for now? I think a D700 would be a great second body to a D800.

The D700 is holding pretty well at $1900-$2200. I would assume the D700's value will hold a little longer since most of the Nikon fans don't need 36 MPs.

Shadowblade wrote in post #13899467
It's not at the expense of ISO performance.

With smaller pixels, you get more noise per pixel than with larger ones. But you also have more pixels. The noise should be the same per sensor area - downsize a 36MP image to 12MP (via pixel binning or whatever) and you should have the same amount of noise per pixel as the 12MP file.

I don't know if that is quite true if comparing same generation sensors: I believe the D3s and D4 Nikons are still felt to be better at very high ISO than the D800. The D800 resized is I believe better than the D700 however, and the 5DII. Nice comparison of features here, very good discussion of noise performance (amongst other features) here http://www.naturescape​s.net …hp?f=57&t=21234​3&start=40 - apologies if duplicate as didn't reread all the pages here.

Biker010 wrote in post #13895805
Well, as a Nikon shooter, and looking to upgrade my D90, I love everything about this new D800.. Except the 36mp!!
I can't help but think they've gone a bit insane, its a headline grabber absolutely no use to 90% of the people who will be using it.

Everyone's making such a fuss over the 36mp, which I see as a disadvantage since there doesn't seem to be a way to make a 12mp RAW file? But other than this the camera looks amazing. It actually seems to have the complete package, a D700 with improvement to everything, for $3,000!.

If Nikon release a firmware upgrade to give the option of a 12mp RAW file I think I'm going to get one, other wise I might have to save a chunk of cash and root out a D700.

So am I the only one that thinks the biggest sales gimmick, most talked about & most envied feature is the one feature that would stop you buying one?

Looks like the marketing department's taking over the R&D, which can only be a bad thing.

I honestly think they're just trying to differentiate it from the D4. The D700 was too close to the D3/s for comfort. What they've done with the D800 is take the D3x and improve it in every way, put it in a D700-size body and cut the price by 60%! It's such a bold move, and it's interesting to see both Nikon and Canon shaking up their pro lines of cameras.

So no, the D800 isn't really a direct D700 replacement. And it worries me a little that they may not make a high-speed FF camera for a low price again any time soon. But my D700 is still perfect, and I could see the D800 being an amazing complement for it in a few years.

pbelarge wrote in post #13895884
Reading over at the Nikonian site, I see a lot of Nikon shooters worried about the density of the sensor in regards to the 36mbs. Seeing as they have been conditioned to less mbs, I can see how this discussion has evolved.

It's no more dense than the D7000's sensor, which is excellent, so I don't know why they're complaining.

chardog wrote in post #13896038
Most of those new features are great, but switching costs a lot of money, and for most shooters, it's not really worth it. Switching means giving up the canon lineup of lens which is a whole lot cheaper than nikon and more extensive.

The 24-70 nikon was pretty expensive last I checked. Sure, if price were no object, the switch would be easy.

The new 24-70L is more than the Nikon. Canon's consumer/prosumer lenses are usually still cheaper, but they no longer have any price advantage with pro lenses... especially as the new L's keep rolling in.

lungdoc wrote in post #13899597
I don't know if that is quite true if comparing same generation sensors: I believe the D3s and D4 Nikons are still felt to be better at very high ISO than the D800. The D800 resized is I believe better than the D700 however, and the 5DII. Nice comparison of features here, very good discussion of noise performance (amongst other features) here http://www.naturescape​s.net …hp?f=57&t=21234​3&start=40 - apologies if duplicate as didn't reread all the pages here.

Have you seen ISO 3200-6400 from the D800? It's impressive coming from a camera with this much MPs. This photog compares it to the D3/D700. From the looks of it, Nikon has hammered Canon to the ground.

http://cmphotography.c​om/blog.cfm